Are all DM's control freaks?

[Talakeal]

So, I have been trying to find a new game group and have tried several and this has been the first time I have been a PC for a number of years, and I am shocked to find out how many inane rules my fellow DM's have. It almost feels like I am back in elementary school. This isn't a single person I am talking about, no one person has done all of them, but here is a list of some examples I am talking about:

-Telling players what color / style of dice to use and how to roll them.
-Dinging XP for showing up late or talking OOC
-Insisting all dialogue by IC and refusing to let players use mechanical terms
-Refusing to let players look at the on other player's character sheets (or describe their own to other players except in in character terms)
-Refusing to let players take their character sheets home
-Refusing to let players add up the numbers on their own character sheets
-Refusing to let the players look at the rule books (even their own) without permission
-Telling players where to sit
-Not letting players check their phones
-Arbitrarily banning basic character options without explanation
-Arbitrarily changing the rules mid game without explanation
-Making players take actions without clearly specifying them first each time, for example insisting a player say "I full attack with my long sword and five levels of power attack" every turn despite them doing that consistently for the entire battle and even making players announce passive abilities like Sneak Attack.

Seriously, I feel like any day now I am going to find a DM who makes me raise my hand to ask a question or get a hall pass to use the bathroom.

When I asked one of my friends about this he simply told me that the only people who would ever put forth the effort to actually run a long term game are people who are starved for attention / control in their life and therefore use the gaming table as a place to get as much of those things as possible.
I protested and said that I am very lax when it comes to structure. I put up with behavior that would get people shot in the old west, as anyone who has followed my threads for a long time probably knows, and was told that I am a special case as, since I primarily play homebrew systems I wrote myself, I get plenty of attention and control simply through the act of having players performing an activity I created and therefore don't need to grasp for power.

So is he right? If not what is up with these GMs? Is this normal, or am I merely getting a bad run of GMs like I have gotten a bad run of players in the past. Let me know what you think?

[enderlord99]

Yes, to a varying extent. Most of those rules are still stupid.

[emeraldstreak]

As a DM, yes, we are. Don't get me wrong, I find all of your list ridiculous things to do, but I bet I have my own quirks.

[snailgosh]

I have played under two GM's so far, one of them being my flatmate, and both happily had the players have the responsibility over their sheets, their numbers etc.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Goodness, no! The only rule I might insist on, generally, is "if you're going to check your phone, you need to leave the table just like you would for a bathroom break", because that's just a sort of courtesy to everyone else. (And digital devices can often be a distraction from the game.)

And I've run into a lot of GMs who don't have those sorts of bonkers behaviors.

I have the hypothesis that this might be more common in D&D with the "DM culture", but I only have vague reasons to think that.

[Daishain]

Yes and no

You seem to have had a bad run of luck, those actions are well over the top for most DMs, and I for one would just walk straight out the door if forced to put up with half of the items on that list.

That stated, all DMs have their own weird little preferences. Most just aren't that intrusive or obnoxious.

[Sartharina]

I find most of them not to be entirely unreasonable, and likely in place for good reason - I know I have 'roll dice a special way" to ensure they actually roll, and stay on the table somewhere easily visible. Color is useful for keeping things organized. Others are metagame solutions to things that can completely bog down/destroy a game if used in excess, and have a tendency to creep into excess if left unchecked.

[blacklight101]

well I know my reaction to that ridiculousness would be: "Well, **** you." and I would just leave. I hope I don't have to deal with a DM like that any time soon. The worst we ever had was basically a threat against our way-too-meta player (she got out the MM a couple times) that she would dock HP until after the session, the rest of us thought it was fair of her.


And nobody tells us what kind of dice to use, they're our collections for a reason. [this goes for everybody, cause dice are awesome and I have a tendency to buy far too many of them] But, the blue ones roll better, what do you mean I have to use red?

[hymer]

I think a lot of those could well have some merit.

-Telling players what color / style of dice to use and how to roll them.

I have rules like that. You have to roll openly, so rolls behind your PHB or with dice nobody can read are right out.

-Refusing to let players look at the on other player's character sheets (or describe their own to other players except in in character terms)

The whole group needs to be in on it, but if they are, this is a very valid way to go. It helps people to think about personality and story and less about mechanics. And the DM would be the obvious one to enforce this if it had been agreed upon. There may also be someone in the party masquerading as something their stats say they are not, or this is just to keep that option open.

-Refusing to let players take their character sheets home

I had a player who lost his character sheet every other session, and leveling up was done in-session. I took his sheet home with me towards the end. But there should be copies, obviously, especially in this digital age.

-Telling players where to sit

If there's a player who tries to peek behind the screen, or if you need a space clear at the table (I like to move out from behind the screen during big fights), you may need to control seating somewhat.

-Not letting players check their phones

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable table rule to me. People can ask for dispensations if they are expecting something important.

-Making players take actions without clearly specifying them first each time, for example insisting a player say "I full attack with my long sword and five levels of power attack" every turn despite them doing that consistently for the entire battle and even making players announce passive abilities like Sneak Attack.

I do the first part at times. When I have upwards of six players at the table, I don't need the added distraction of remembering their particular modus operandi or special tells. And I don't think "Full attack, power five" is too much to ask.

So is he right? If not what is up with these GMs? Is this normal, or am I merely getting a bad run of GMs like I have gotten a bad run of players in the past. Let me know what you think?

He is wrong (sweeping generalizations nearly always are). Some DMs, like all people, have their weird ways, and the usually closed club of a gaming group can be difficult to break into for outsiders. Right now, you're coming across a lot of groups that likely have a high turnover rate - those are the ones to need players most. I think you're having bad luck rather than seeing the real thing, but with the caveat that you may need to put up with a bit of oddity for the sake of getting a game. Some oddness actually has good reasons.

[Totema]

The only "example" I actually agree with is the phone rule. Checking your phone extensively during a game: 1. Sucks you out of the game like nothing else, and 2. Is incredibly rude to other players and the DM. It's like being on a date, and your date is absolutely entrenched in his/her phone instead of actually interacting with you. Not cool.

Everything else, though, is out of line. A little of it seems like it might have good intentions (such as curbing metagaming) but really only succeeds in making the game unplayable.

[Traab]

A lot of those I can see reasons for them existing, the dice one especially has been covered already. Its entirely possible the Dms you play with have encountered too many problem players so they made these rules to compensate. For example, he has dealt with too damn many rules lawyers or muchkins who want to argue chapter and verse of whatever book they are quoting from. By refusing to let them page through the rule books he is making sure he doesnt trigger another 3 hour argument over "well it depends on what your definition of the word "is" is." As they push for specific interpretations of the rules the dm doesnt want. This way the dm can say, "Dont care, this is how it works, lets move on."

However, arbitray rules changing and such sucks if the dm wont even explain why he doesnt allow this particular class or build. Unless of course its just a flat out overoptimized setup that would ruin the game he setup. But it still wouldnt hurt to say so.

[BWR]

The amount of stuff you've had to put up with, Tal...
*shakes head in disbelief*

Some of those options I can see being put into place from bitter experience, even if they might be going a bit too far.
Some dice can be hard to read, and rolling in certain places can be hidden from other players. Problems with people honestly or 'honestly' misreading dice or otherwise cheating? Problems with dice falling on the floor or in the couch or sliding or landing unevenly? Make sure they have clearly labled dice and roll them where everyone can easily see the result.
You have problems with players constantly fiddling with their phones, burning game time, not paying attention? A blanket ban on phones is a lot easier than trying to set any other sort of limit because chances are it will just get out of hand again.
Players spending more time reading books than paying attention to the game, requiring everything to be said twice? Ban reading books.
People constantly coming late and ruining the fun for everyone else but manage to come on time when faced with an ultimatum? Xp penalties.
Tired of people never playing characters or being able to speak IC? Enforce IC speech.
Problem with players 'fixing' their character in downtime or being absent for a session? just leave all sheets with the GM (that's how my group has always done it - otherwise we would be arbitrarily short of manpower on a regular basis). And sadly, sometimes otherwise decent players cheat. Keep them on strict oversight and you can sometimes handle it.
Problems with players not saying clearly what they do so things become a muddle? Even worse, having some add situational modifiers like PA after they've seen their rolls (and other forms of cheating)? See above.
Arbitrarily changing rules mid-game - 'arbitrary' might not be how they see things. I've been on both sides of this for better or worse. You see a rule in action and decide you don't like it. What the DM feels is a bad or broken rule might not be what a player thinks is a bad or broken rule. Once the decision has been made, it should generally be abided by. Sometimes the rule change is, to your mind, unnecessary and limiting. However, the 'no explanation' bit doesn't exactly inspire trust in a player and I can't find any reason to excuse that.



The most important thing in any conflict of interest is communication. Understand exactly why the change is in place. Ask them 'why' and if you still disagree try to state your case as calmly and objectively as possible.

[Exediron]

Only the good ones.

-telling players what color / style of dice to use and how to roll them. not reasonable, unless he has reasonable suspicions of cheating.
-dinging xp for showing up late or talking ooc tempting, but no; that's mixing in-character effects with ooc causes, which is usually a bad
-insisting all dialogue by ic and refusing to let players use mechanical terms grey area; this one has merits, but needs consensus.
-refusing to let players look at the on other player's character sheets (or describe their own to other players except in in character terms) completely agree.
-refusing to let players take their character sheets home i don't do it, but there is a good reason to.
-refusing to let players add up the numbers on their own character sheets see number 1.
-refusing to let the players look at the rule books (even their own) without permission going too far, but too much book-looking really clogs up a session.
-telling players where to sit unless it's for some logistical reason, such as if the party is split.
-not letting players check their phones god yes, more people need to have this one!
-arbitrarily banning basic character options without explanation 'without explanation' is the problem here.
-arbitrarily changing the rules mid game without explanation absolutely not.
-making players take actions without clearly specifying them first each time, for example insisting a player say "i full attack with my long sword and five levels of power attack" every turn despite them doing that consistently for the entire battle and even making players announce passive abilities like sneak attack. it's a bit pedantic, but i can imagine why he might. This probably means that particular dm had problems with a munchkin in the past.

... and why is the forum tweaking with my use of case?

[sktarq]

-Telling players what color / style of dice to use and how to roll them.

Beyond demanding that the DM can see the dice, they are clearly marked etc That seems a bit harsh. Unless maybe there are distraction issues-with dice that use fancy symbols for 1's or max's are mirrored etc as cross in some distraction boundary. Exception would be if members of the group all roll together and dice are being used to differentiate characters asking players to be consistent would make sense. (usually limited to initiative but who knows)
.

-Dinging XP for showing up late or talking OOC

That's a pretty debatable issue-fine if worked out ahead of time. Only time it has ever come up for me was when the others players demanded it, feeling like others only showed up at the end but got XP for the whole adventure.

-Insisting all dialogue by IC and refusing to let players use mechanical terms

There is a spectrum here. Banning game terms in IC speech does help drive immersion. Needs to be set up as a general rule early by general acclaim but the DM would be the natural one to enforce said rule.

-Refusing to let players look at the on other player's character sheets (or describe their own to other players except in in character terms)

This can be damn useful for immersion. Also some players want to misrepresent what they are to the party and if the DM is going to support that then a blanket rule would be safest.

-Refusing to let players take their character sheets home

Yeah having the DM keep the sheets does make sense to a lot of groups. Less loss, no cheating, there for reference when the DM is building an adventure. Also if a player doesn't make the game that week but reference needs to be made to their character sheet for whatever reason it is on hand. Personally I hold the master sheets and players are free to keep a copy for themselves if they wish.

-Refusing to let players add up the numbers on their own character sheets

er...really that's a bit much

-Refusing to let the players look at the rule books (even their own) without permission

only okay if its running up against a generally distraction rule.

-Telling players where to sit

-As problem resolution fine, or in needing to keep things behind the screen would be fine. or even -within the general circle and not glaring at everyone from the corner type stuff I can see but usually no.

-Not letting players check their phones

Yeah as part of the general distraction rule set.

-Arbitrarily banning basic character options without explanation

If done before builds are due or especially if before they would be excepted then that's a rather common one and totally cool in my book. A highly morally grey campaign planed may warrant skipping over the Paladins. If they are playing a very magic poor world they may want to restrict the arcane spellcaster choices. If it involves something that will later be part of a dramatic reveal then keeping it mostly under wraps ahead of time makes sense. As long as such restriction are laid out VERY early its pretty kosher. However explanations should be given - even if it "There are plans for the ***** that that make it inappropriate for a PC"

-Arbitrarily changing the rules mid game without explanation

That happens and frankly explanations should be given.

-Making players take actions without clearly specifying them first each time, for example insisting a player say "I full attack with my long sword and five levels of power attack" every turn despite them doing that consistently for the entire battle and even making players announce passive abilities like Sneak Attack.

I'd say this would be overkill as a starting place. If there are issues of a history of challenges to such calls, or very large groups then I could see it as an attempted problem fix. But not a great place to start.

[PrincessCupcake]

Yes, all DMs are control freaks. It's part of the job description. Some definitely take it too far though.

-Telling players what color / style of dice to use and how to roll them.
plausible but excessive. I ask all my players to make sure they can read their own dice and make sure they stay on the table. Comes out of players having hard to read dice and/or cheating.

-Dinging XP for showing up late or talking OOC
Odds are, this DM had one or more players whom once they got off topic were very hard to get back on, and another player who liked to show up an hour or more late. Again, it's a bit excessive but an acceptable last resort.

-Insisting all dialogue by IC and refusing to let players use mechanical terms
this one is outright silly.

-Refusing to let players look at the on other player's character sheets (or describe their own to other players except in in character terms)
uh......

-Refusing to let players take their character sheets home
They probably had a player who cheated

-Refusing to let players add up the numbers on their own character sheets
.............

-Refusing to let the players look at the rule books (even their own) without permission
Possibly follows a general "minimize distractions or arguing" thing

-Telling players where to sit
excessive

-Not letting players check their phones
this makes a fair bit of sense, especially with easily distracted players.

-Arbitrarily banning basic character options without explanation
"Without explanation" is what bugs me here

-Arbitrarily changing the rules mid game without explanation
Bad Dming

-Making players take actions without clearly specifying them first each time, for example insisting a player say "I full attack with my long sword and five levels of power attack" every turn despite them doing that consistently for the entire battle and even making players announce passive abilities like Sneak Attack.
Sometimes, this is to help players remember that they have abilities. Sometimes, it's done because the DM has a LOT of stuff to keep track of and needs the player to be clear.

[Talakeal]

-Refusing to let players add up the numbers on their own character sheets
.............

And I am not talking about actually writing down the numbers (we aren't allowed to do that either), I mean checking the DM's math and pointing out "mistakes", of which there were many.

[TheThan]

Refusing to let players take their character sheets home

I’ve done this. The players in question were actually pretty awful about keeping track of their character sheets, so after more than a few lost or misplaced character sheets, I decided to start collecting them so they would be there the next session.

-Not letting players check their phones

I’ve been tempted to do this, but I understand that life happens. So my policy is no internet unless you’re using it for the game. I’ve seen people fire up angry birds in the middle of a dnd session before, and that I dislike. If you’re going to play dnd, then play dnd, but if you’re not playing dnd, don’t pretend to. It’s rude and insulting the other players. That being said, if you have to take a call, answer a text or whatever, I’m fine with that. if things start getting out of hand, I’ll tighten down on it.

Telling players what color / style of dice to use and how to roll them.

Some dice are very hard to read, I require that I am able to see and read the dice for it to count.
I bought a set a beautiful translucent aquamarine dice, but after using them once I realized that they’re hard to read, so I don’t use them anymore.

Now I’m rather pro-Dm, so I tend to come down on the side of the Dm. that being said, we’re not all prickish about control. We want games to run smoothly with a minimum of interruptions and distractions. Most of the rules listed seem like they try to enforce that environment.

[Giddonihah]

Those rules seem fine for some systems.. Like Paranoia. Otherwise they are a little over the top.

[Thrudd]

-Telling players what color / style of dice to use and how to roll them.

making sure dice are rolled openly and can be read is the important thing. Depending on the table this might mean rolling them on a tray or in a box to keep them from flying off. Anything else seems excessive.

-Dinging XP for showing up late or talking OOC

Excessive to me, but depends on the game and the group. Depends on how XP is rewarded. Even groups that are serious about roleplaying IC usually have a provision for speaking OOC, like making a signal or announcing it first.

-Insisting all dialogue by IC and refusing to let players use mechanical terms

For groups serious about IC dialogue, they would want you to make the OOC signal before you start talking about rules. I don't do this, but I know a lot of people do.

-Refusing to let players look at the on other player's character sheets (or describe their own to other players except in in character terms)

This makes sense, especially when players expect to be able to hide information from each other. This is also in-keeping with the serious IC roleplay group that wants little to no OOC talk.

-Refusing to let players take their character sheets home

An understandable strategy for preventing cheating, people losing sheets, and helping the DM prepare. However, there's no reason not to have multiple copies and let the player have one.

-Refusing to let players add up the numbers on their own character sheets

Don't understand that, but I would guess the group has a real problem with cheating (or with basic math skills, or both)

-Refusing to let the players look at the rule books (even their own) without permission

I agree with not letting players look through monster manuals and DMG in D&D. In games where there is only one book, I can see the GM wanting to make sure you are only looking at the player information section and not the GM section that has enemy stats and setting details that your character shouldn't have.

-Telling players where to sit

Only in a general sense, to make sure the DM info is out of view of the players. Anything beyond that seems excessive unless there's a really good reason (specific players who can't keep their hands off each other or are known to distract each other all the time)

-Not letting players check their phones

Excessive unless this has been a problem for the group in the past. It is really discourteous to always be looking at your phone during the game. Taking a call or answering a text from your family or SO once during the night is understandable. If your SO won't leave you alone the whole night and you're constantly getting calls or texts, this is a problem. If there's an issue at home, you shouldn't be playing, you should be at home.

-Arbitrarily banning basic character options without explanation

"I don't want this in my game/This doesn't exist in my game world" should be the only explanation needed. "Arbitrary" is really in the eye of the beholder. However, what is available and restricted should be made clear during character creation.

-Arbitrarily changing the rules mid game without explanation

If there are house rules, all the players should be aware of them. A new player entering an existing group might understandably create the situation where everyone else is aware of something and forgot to mention it before it came up in the game. The DM is under no obligation to debate decisions with you, but a simple "it's a house rule" should suffice.

-Making players take actions without clearly specifying them first each time, for example insisting a player say "I full attack with my long sword and five levels of power attack" every turn despite them doing that consistently for the entire battle and even making players announce passive abilities like Sneak Attack.

You should clearly announce what your character is doing. You should be able to say "I take the same actions as last round", but there's no reason the DM should assume that. I would let you say "I am doing X, unless I say otherwise".

Overall, it sounds like this group is trying to take the role playing seriously, or at least feels like in-character immersion and interaction is the most important thing. You may be used to folks who are more game-y.

[icefractal]

Wow, sounds like you've had some terrible DMs. IME - no, not all DMs are like that or even close to it. The closest I've even seen to a controlling DM was a couple people who were very keen on going by the letter of the rules (and they followed that themselves also).

Personally, I would just laugh and walk away if a DM even busted out anything close to that list of rules. And I think most people I know would as well.

Recommendation - try PbP, if that's what the local scene is like.

[sktarq]

-Telling players what color / style of dice to use and how to roll them.

I've been thinking about this more. And actually I'm okay with this as a general concept. I realize I and almost every other DM I've ever known does this so it is a matter of what the regulations he puts in place are.

Most of mine are left unsaid most of the time but I have quite a few...and its never come up as a point of DM being a control freak.

My 10 Rules when I'm the DM about dice and how to roll them in my games.

Spoiler

Show

1) I must be able to easily read the roll. as a side effect this will ban some types of dice-any that are hard to read from poor contrast, being too translucent, using any other symbol than a numeral, poor separations of 6 and 9 or 1 and 10 types if applicable. Also it means that the dice must be in a place I can see or QUICKLY get to/have box easily passed to me in such a way as the dice are not disturbed. If this means that certain areas of the room are not appropriate places to sit-so be it. Though I try to take that into consideration in picking where to sit myself.

2) Only dice that end up in dice/roll box count. This is one of the only "spoken" rules. It is easy yes/no system that helps the game go faster. Leaning dice are rerolled unless it is obvious which number is up. Definition of obvious is left to the judgment of the roller but abuse will get judgement privileges revoked.

3) Dice rolls must happen quickly. I don't care if you milk a windup for drama on a big roll....but don't slow the game down by having to get up cross the room pick dice out of a bag... you get the idea. Also claiming you need specific die and not having them near instantly at hand is seriously frowned upon-as in you need your red d20 and have to dig in your dice bag for it when there are two perfectly functional d20's right there.

4) All the dice in a roll must be thrown together. This is for a mix of reasons of time and to prevent people from using later dice to reset poor outcomes while protecting good ones. If there are not enough dice of that type roll them all (note them down as necessary) clear the board and roll more until you have rolled all that you need.

5) The dice box should be empty when you throw your roll....basically other dice/stuff should not influence the roll.

6) Don't roll dice you don't need-

7) The die/dice must be free of the influence of the hand before they hit the table. To prevent a couple things. Firstly to prevents people from trickling dice down the fingers/pseudo placeing the dice etc. Secondly from preventing "slam rolling" where you take the dice in a cupped hand and turn the hand down onto a surface, then remove the hand to reveal the result. I dislike this as it ends up resulting oddly placed dice in weird stacks more often than other techniques and also has a tendency to get quite vigorous at times which has a history of upsetting things on the table, breaking things, moving minis/tokens, spilling drinks, and causing other disruptions to play.

8) Minimize trans-box ballistic dice. Basically don't roll in such a way that dice flying out of the box that we have to chase down and pull re rolls. I think it is rude, especially as other players will often have to be pulled in to recover and or search for them. Basically this bans "fastballs" of throwing the dice so hard as to cause them to carom right back out or the "high rain" of holding your arm up at full extension and letting the dice fall so they bounce out.

9) Any compound rolls. Where either several players are rolling individual rolls at the same time or sequential rolls are being rolled together (to hit and damage for example) different colour dice must be used, which dice mean what should be kept standard as much as possible both between rolls and between players.

10) If the above are problematic, the player can ask for the DM to roll on their behalf-including PvP situations. The players can ask to roll themselves whenever they want as long as it doesn't slow up the game and exceptions can be made for dramatic moments at the like.

Basically Keep it in the box and whatever I think is necessary to be fair, don't disrupt, and don't slow the game down.

-Telling players where to sit

I'm actually going to expand on my above answer with this with three stories of why I think it is okay for DM's to exercise some degree of control of seating.
Story one-I was another player in this game

Spoiler

Show

Basically we were playing a five-six persan game back in 2e D&D. All but one of us sat around a dining room table while one player sat off in an easy chair. The DM used a lot of maps, handouts etc. This caused people to always have to get up and pass him things, The DM would have to explain visuals twice, pause when he fetched extra dice, etc. It also reinforced a very ...individualistic .... take to his character viewpoint. It put a psychological distance between him and the rest of the party and his character that led to him being rather argumentative. When the DM eventually put his foot down and made the player sit with the rest of us that behavior massively diminished. Also it acted as a time sink

I usually gamed with most of this group but couldn't for this 3.5 D&D game but couldn't this time so got an earful from several sources that confirmed each other.

Spoiler

Show

Basically similar to the above in that one player sat away from the others though it started with two of them away from the main table sitting together (the other player dropping out before this came to a head). Not being able to quickly get out of his bean bag chair to move his mini or see the combat map his description of what he wanted to do got him in trouble, challenge to setting off traps, when flanking rules applied (esp against him). Eventually the DM made him sit elsewhere.

This last one is totally secondhand from a single source but is still significant

Spoiler

Show

There was a male player who kept finding ways to "accidentally" touch another player who just "happened" to be female. Needless to say this made her uncomfortable and the DM forcibly separated their seating arrangement in order to protect her experience.

So yeah, Part of the DM's job is regulate things that are being disruptive to the game and if seating is somehow being disruptive to the game then he or she is well within his rights to regulate it.

Actually I think that can be applied to a lot of those rules. If it is a problem then those rules would be an okay fix but assuming those will be problem isn't really a good thing.

[neonchameleon]

here is a list of some examples I am talking about:

-Telling players what color / style of dice to use and how to roll them.
-Dinging XP for showing up late or talking OOC
-Insisting all dialogue by IC and refusing to let players use mechanical terms
-Refusing to let players look at the on other player's character sheets (or describe their own to other players except in in character terms)
-Refusing to let players take their character sheets home
-Refusing to let players add up the numbers on their own character sheets
-Refusing to let the players look at the rule books (even their own) without permission
-Telling players where to sit
-Not letting players check their phones
-Arbitrarily banning basic character options without explanation
-Arbitrarily changing the rules mid game without explanation
-Making players take actions without clearly specifying them first each time, for example insisting a player say "I full attack with my long sword and five levels of power attack" every turn despite them doing that consistently for the entire battle and even making players announce passive abilities like Sneak Attack.

Yeeesh (other than on the phones point).

When I asked one of my friends about this he simply told me that the only people who would ever put forth the effort to actually run a long term game are people who are starved for attention / control in their life and therefore use the gaming table as a place to get as much of those things as possible.

Not all DMs are control freaks. People who are control freaks tend to DM. You say you're easy going - and you DM.

But this is worst for 3.0 and 3.5 as they are immensely high prep games, so only people who want to put in that level of work are going to DM. Meaning that an even greater proportion are control freaks. (Pathfinder is better that way because of all the APs).

[jedipotter]

So is he right? If not what is up with these GMs? Is this normal, or am I merely getting a bad run of GMs like I have gotten a bad run of players in the past. Let me know what you think?

It is a bit more accurate to say all DM's are controllers. That is people that like to have things set up and in control. And control is not a bad thing in a social activity. If just one person takes control, then a social activity can be much more fun and over all better for all. Take a pot luck dinner....you could just sit back and say ''bring whatever'' or you can take a couple minutes to ask people what they will bring and make sure there is not too much over lap and a good variety. That is taking control.


I do almost everything on your list. Except the dice one and the math one.

Just take the phone one. Sure the DM can ask ''pretty please with sugar on top'' that people not use phones during the game. But not everyone can put down the phone. And someone using their phone disrupts the whole game. So it is goo for the DM to step up and take control here. My rule is phone goes in one basket, battery goes in the other.

Or take the seat one. Ok, some people just can't control themselves. You put Mike next to Andy and they will goof off and ruin the game for everyone(including themselves). But if you seat Sally between then...they act like normal people and play the game. And often I'll have a new player sit next to me too

And the ''arbitrary'' stuff is just silly. I don't like the Tome of Battle, it will not be used in my game. I don't need to have a discussion about it or give the players a 10,000 word reason why.

[cougon]

I would like to comment on the "telling players where to sit" point. I tend to do this for a couple of players, but for reasons that haven't been mentioned yet. I have one player who talks loudly and if he sits next to me, then he has a tendency to drown out other players. I ask him to sit at the far end of the table from me. I can still hear him just fine and other players can be better heard and get their fair share of time from me. Similarly, I have a player who is fairly quiet and withdrawn. If I don't seat her next to me, then she has a really hard time getting heard and getting my attention when she wants to say or do something. I do this seating to better allow everyone to contribute without being drowned out by others.

[Talakeal]

I am not necessarily talking about when it is distracting, I mean period. For example, my current DM doesn't want me to look at rulebooks / the internet when I am creating or leveling up a character before or after the session.

I have, on occasion, asked a player who was constantly texting / playing games on their phone or laying down on the coach in the next room if they could please come participate in the game, but I always phrase it as a request, not as a rule / demand.

[Mr Beer]

I am not necessarily talking about when it is distracting, I mean period. For example, my current DM doesn't want me to look at rulebooks / the internet when I am creating or leveling up a character before or after the session.

LOL, that's adorable. I might tell the GM to find another player, alternatively be all like 'Sure GM, I promise not to look at any rulebooks when levelling' and then look at the rule books.

[jedipotter]

I am not necessarily talking about when it is distracting, I mean period. For example, my current DM doesn't want me to look at rulebooks / the internet when I am creating or leveling up a character before or after the session.

I'm big on no rule books during play. Some times I'll try and go book, by book, but too many books have too much information in them. So the easy way is just no books, no internet.

The big bad here is a single player trying to look up something they kind sorta remember reading somewhere. Some players can waste a whole game doing this, and disrupt the game for everyone.

And the ''don't look at the rules'' is very Old School.....only if games could be like that again. Often this DM type uses the secret rules to ''ban stuff''. If the player does not know something exists, it is ''banned''.

I have, on occasion, asked a player who was constantly texting / playing games on their phone or laying down on the coach in the next room if they could please come participate in the game, but I always phrase it as a request, not as a rule / demand.

This can get very disruptive. ''Asking'' every couple of minutes ''hey can you put down the phone and play'' gets very tiring and annoying. So you have to make it a rule for some people. And that is just if they keep it to themselves, as they can ''find a cool you tube video'' every other minute to share with the group.

So sure ''asking'' is great, if your fine with doing it 50-100 times a game and being mostly ignored. Or you can make it a rule and never have to ''ask'' again.

I ''ask'' that if someone comes to my house to play D&D, that they.......come to my house and play D&D. If they want to do anything else, I'll just tell them to leave.

[Remmirath]

Control freaks? No, surely not. Most are, however, looking to control the session in some way, since that is part of their function. I tend to be a fairly rules-light sort of GM, personally; I first attempt to just let people use their common sense, but unfortunately this doesn't always work, and then you need rules. I tend to assume that GMs who have a large number of rules fall into two general categories: those who have had lots of problem players in the past, or those who are really lawful types. It sounds to me like about half of the examples (that I disagree with at all) probably come of past problem players, and the other half probably come of people who just like a lot of rules. Any rules.

All right, rule by rule:

( = I disagree with this entirely; = I think this is a bad idea but can see where they are coming from; = I'm neutral on this one; = this is fine in my opinion; = I actively endorse this one)

-Telling players what color / style of dice to use and how to roll them.

That's ridiculous, in my opinion. The only "how to roll them" there should be is "don't cheat", and aside from a few specific cases (such as "please don't use metal dice on this table, it will damage it"), there is no reason to specify the style of dice to use.

-Dinging XP for showing up late or talking OOC

I don't agree with this -- it's punishing out of character behaviour in character, and I don't believe that adds up quite right -- but rewarding good roleplaying is perfectly acceptable, and if one shows up egregiously late it can be trying. I can see where they would be coming from on it, but I don't believe it's the correct solution to the problem this GM was likely having.

-Insisting all dialogue by IC and refusing to let players use mechanical terms

/ Dialogue really ought to be in character. That's sort of the point to roleplaying instead of playing a board or war game, at least how I see it. I've no problem with the players hobnobbing out of character occasionally, but I would say that the majority of a roleplaying session should be taken up with roleplaying. As for mechanical terms, I'm fine with using them if there's no other reasonable way to go about it, but sometimes it can be a bit silly (one probably shouldn't say, in character, "I'm going to see if I can make my save!" for instance). Obviously there's no reason not to use them out of character, and it would be strange not to let people do so.

-Refusing to let players look at the on other player's character sheets (or describe their own to other players except in in character terms)

I don't have a problem with this, but I also don't typically keep people from doing with it. There can be good reasons to restrict it. If your players are not good with separating player and character knowledge, it's actively a good idea.

-Refusing to let players take their character sheets home

I've seen groups that have good reason to do this. If some players, or many of the players, have frequently taken their sheets home and lost them, a general policy of keeping the sheets can make sense. In those groups, however, they've generally let players that they know will keep a hold of their sheets take them home anyhow (although it is of course in better taste to discuss this out of the presence of those who can't keep track of them). If that's not the deal, though, I don't think it's warranted -- unless possibly the GM feels that they need copies of the sheets on hand to help them get the appropriate amount of challenge in encounters, but I would in that case simply jot down the relevant information from the character sheets and not keep the sheets.

-Refusing to let players add up the numbers on their own character sheets

Not acceptable, in my opinion. Your character sheet is, well, your character sheet. If I get suspicious about something, I might look at it and check the math -- but I'll surely never keep a player from writing on their own sheet.

-Refusing to let the players look at the rule books (even their own) without permission

Definitely not acceptable if they are not letting people even look at the books to level up. Keeping the sorts of players who pull out their Monster Manuals at every single encounter, from doing that, sure, and excessive searching for rules is something that bothers me -- but if the player is new, I'm fine with letting them look things up. If they're not new, yeah, they shouldn't be looking through books in the middle of the game more than every now and again. It's a bit disruptive. But banning it even when levelling? No. I may not need the book to level my characters, but I certainly won't keep others from using it. That's just counter productive.

-Telling players where to sit

I could see some circumstances under which it could be reasonable, but those are not the norm. I'd generally say it's not a good thing. I'm assuming that it goes beyond telling them what table the game is at or what grouping of furniture you're using, of course. Having everybody sit within easy hearing distance is entirely reasonable. Some specific people, at some times, might be less annoying when not sitting next to each other... that can happen. Telling everybody where to sit is likely to not be reasonable, though.

-Not letting players check their phones

Completely acceptable, and indeed preferable. Within reason, of course. My general belief on this is that people should be allowed to check their phones only for actual phone calls, and if they must take a phone call (as in, if it is in fact important), they excuse themselves and go out of the room. Phone usage is highly disruptive. Playing cell phone games or checking social sites and what is right out. If that's what you want to be doing with your time, don't bother pretending you want to be playing in the game -- you clearly don't, and are free to leave it.

-Arbitrarily banning basic character options without explanation

/if explained, They should be explained, certainly, but there's nothing inherently wrong with banning character options... and people's idea of "basic" differs (unless, of course, you're talking "play a human" or "play a cleric", for example). There are few things that I will ban outright in my games, because I do generally believe that I can work around whatever a player wants to do, but there are some. A few books really do not fit in mechanically with others, and if I don't like the mechanics of that book, I'm going to be banning it. (Yes, this does include Tome of Battle.) I will, however, always be happy to explain why these things are banned, if players want to know, and I'll help them get the closest they can to what they wanted from what was banned. If they are that unhappy that I banned those few books that I do, chances are they'll be better off in a different group anyhow.

-Arbitrarily changing the rules mid game without explanation

Certainly bad form. If a house rule is enacted mid-game, I feel that it should be agreed upon by all in the group, and house rules should always be made available to players. House rule changes should not be arbitrary, and unless they were in place prior to a person joining a group, should not be made without the consent of all in the group.

Exception: The players are bogged down in a rules argument, and it's not getting anywhere. Ruling that we'll do X for now and then look it up/decide for certain later makes sense then. Ideally one does not get a rules dispute in the first place, of course, but those tend to suck the life out of a game when they happen, so they need to be stopped one way or another. The other option is pausing until it can be settled, and depending on frequency of play and length of sessions, that might not really be an option. There are still usually better ways to handle this, but I can see it in that case.

-Making players take actions without clearly specifying them first each time, for example insisting a player say "I full attack with my long sword and five levels of power attack" every turn despite them doing that consistently for the entire battle and even making players announce passive abilities like Sneak Attack.

Annoying. I would not do it, that's for sure. I generally only ask that people go into that level of detail if they are doing something out of the ordinary. If you have large numbers of players, and certainly large numbers of characters to a player, this would really bog down. Not horrible, though, mostly just a time waster.

[Talakeal]

It is a bit more accurate to say all DM's are controllers. That is people that like to have things set up and in control. And control is not a bad thing in a social activity. If just one person takes control, then a social activity can be much more fun and over all better for all. Take a pot luck dinner....you could just sit back and say ''bring whatever'' or you can take a couple minutes to ask people what they will bring and make sure there is not too much over lap and a good variety. That is taking control.


I do almost everything on your list. Except the dice one and the math one.

Just take the phone one. Sure the DM can ask ''pretty please with sugar on top'' that people not use phones during the game. But not everyone can put down the phone. And someone using their phone disrupts the whole game. So it is goo for the DM to step up and take control here. My rule is phone goes in one basket, battery goes in the other.

Or take the seat one. Ok, some people just can't control themselves. You put Mike next to Andy and they will goof off and ruin the game for everyone(including themselves). But if you seat Sally between then...they act like normal people and play the game. And often I'll have a new player sit next to me too

And the ''arbitrary'' stuff is just silly. I don't like the Tome of Battle, it will not be used in my game. I don't need to have a discussion about it or give the players a 10,000 word reason why.

Thats messed up. I have never seen anyone enforce all (or even most) of the things on the list at the same time, and certainly not taken to the same level as you. Do people actually put up with that? I put up with a lot of crap for gaming, but if someone told me they were actually taking my phone away from me or refused to even explain their behavior I would be out the door so fast the neighbors would think the place was on fire nd leaving a trail of colorful language behind me.

[jedipotter]

Thats messed up. I have never seen anyone enforce all (or even most) of the things on the list at the same time, and certainly not taken to the same level as you. Do people actually put up with that? I put up with a lot of crap for gaming, but if someone told me they were actually taking my phone away from me or refused to even explain their behavior I would be out the door so fast the neighbors would think the place was on fire nd leaving a trail of colorful language behind me.

Why would people need to ''put up with it''? It is not such a big deal. A normal person can be just fine without having or using their phone for five hours. Most players are fine with the rule as they want to play too.

And explain what behavior? The ''arbitrary '' stuff? What exactly is to explain there? I''l ban stuff I don't like, no big deal there. Do you feel you need an explanation for ''I don't like''? I guess we could waste time talking about it. You'd say you like it, I'd say I don't and we'd just be wasting time.

And ''arbitrary'' rule changes, well we could fill threads with this stuff. I go with ''the DM's say is final'', if you don't like it leave. I'll never understand the type of game like the DM says ''the arrow misses'' and then the player demands to know why rules-wise. You'd spend more time second guessing the DM then playing the game, so why bother?